hi:
This is indeed an easier way to understand.
I like this proposal very much.
In this case, Route1 should have a higher priority than Route2.
=================
{
"name": "route1",
"uri": "/_graphql",
"vars": [
["graphql_operation", "==", "query"],
["graphql_name", "==", "getRepo"],
["graphql_root_fields", "has", "owner"]
],
"upstream": {
"type": "roundrobin",
"nodes": {
"39.97.63.215:80 <http://39.97.63.215/>": 1
}
}
}
and
{
"name": "route2",
"uri": "/_graphql",
"upstream": {
"type": "roundrobin",
"nodes": {
"39.97.63.215:81": 1
}
}
}
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 3:50 PM Li Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, Community,
>
> Currently in APISIX, there is a built-in prioritization of routes by
> the matching uri.
> For example, if the requested uri is /foo/bar, and the server side routes
> contain /foo/bar and /foo/* and /*.
> Although all 3 uri patterns match /foo/bar, only the exact match /foo/bar
> will be chosen. That design makes
> much sense since a stricter route takes priority than a looser one.
> But when we have route matching on fields other than uri, the
> priority will only depend on the priority field.
> For example, consider 2 routes:
>
> {
> "name": "route1",
> "uri": "/_graphql",
> "vars": [
> ["graphql_operation", "==", "query"],
> ["graphql_name", "==", "getRepo"],
> ["graphql_root_fields", "has", "owner"]
> ],
> "upstream": {
> "type": "roundrobin",
> "nodes": {
> "39.97.63.215:80": 1
> }
> }
> }
>
> and
>
> {
> "name": "route2",
> "uri": "/_graphql",
> "upstream": {
> "type": "roundrobin",
> "nodes": {
> "39.97.63.215:81": 1
> }
> }
> }
>
> A request which matches both route1 and route2 will possibly hit
> route2 since we don't have prioritization on vars.
>
> Although priority setting can help here, if a big organization
> shares the same APISIX, it will be difficult for all
> the developers to agree on how to use the priorities since every priority
> itself can impact others in an unexpected way.
>
> Here I want to propose that we provide a smart prioritization:
>
> * If route X and route Y share the same URI, their priority will be
> determined like this: *
> * Route X should be matched first if and only if route X's matching
> rule set is a proper superset of route Y's matching rule set.*
>
> Relevant discussion: https://github.com/apache/apisix/issues/3865
>
--
*MembPhis*
My GitHub: https://github.com/membphis
Apache APISIX: https://github.com/apache/apisix
